nmm 22 4500ICPSR02686MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150331s2000 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02686MiAaIMiAaI
Evaluation of the Children at Risk Program in Austin, Texas, Bridgeport, Connecticut, Memphis, Tennessee, Savannah, Georgia, and Seattle, Washington, 1993-1997
[electronic resource]
Adele V. Harrell
,
Shannon Cavanagh
,
Sanjeev Sridharan
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2000ICPSR2686NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-31.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
s about the police,
occasions of skipping school and why, if the youth thought he or she
would be promoted to the next grade, would graduate from high school,
or would go to college, knowledge of children engaging in various
problem activities and if the youth was pressured to join them, and
experiences with and attitudes toward consumption of cigarettes,
alcohol, and various drugs. Three sections of the questionnaire were
completed by the youths. Section A asked questions about the youth's
attitudes toward various statements about self, life, the home
environment, rules, and norms. Section B asked questions about the
number of times that various crimes had been committed against the
youth, his or her sexual activity, number of times the youth ran away
from home, number of times he or she had committed various criminal
acts, and what weapons he or she had carried. Items in Section C
covered the youth's alcohol and drug use, and participation in drug
sales. Part 3 provides data from both caretaker interviews (baseline
and end-of-program). Questions elicited the caretaker's assessments of
the presence of various positive and negative neighborhood
characteristics, safety of the child in the neighborhood, attitudes
toward and interactions with the police, if the caretaker had been
arrested, had been on probation, or in jail, whether various crimes
had been committed against the caretaker or others in the household in
the past year, activities that the youth currently participated in,
curfews set by the caretaker, if the caretaker had visited the school
for various reasons, school performance or problems by the youth and
the youth's siblings, amount of the caretaker's involvement with
activities, clubs, and groups, the caretaker's financial, medical, and
personal problems and assistance received in the past year, if he or
she was not able to obtain help, why not, and information on the
caretaker's education, employment, income level, income sources, and
where he or she sought medical treatment for themselves or for the
youth. Two sections of the data collection instruments were completed
by the caretaker. Section A dealt with the youth's personal problems
or problems with others, and the youth's friends. Additional questions
focused on the family's interactions, rules, and norms. Section B
items asked about the caretaker's alcohol and drug use, and any
alcohol and drug use or criminal justice involvement by others in the
household older than the youth. Part 4 consists of data from schools,
police, and courts. School data include the youth's grades,
grade-point average (GPA), absentee rate, reasons for absences, and
whether the youth was promoted each school year. Data from police
records include police contacts, detentions, violent offenses,
drug-related offenses, and arrests prior to recruitment in the CAR
program and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, court contacts and charges
prior to recruitment and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, and how the
charges were disposed.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02686.v1
interventionicpsrintervention strategiesicpsrcase managementicpsrjuvenile offendersicpsrneighborhoodsicpsrprogram evaluationicpsrstudent attitudesicpsrstudent behavioricpsrtreatment programsicpsryouths at riskicpsrchildrenicpsrcitiesicpsrcrime preventionicpsrdelinquent behavioricpsrdrug useicpsrfamily servicesicpsrNACJD II. Community StudiesNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemHarrell, Adele V.Cavanagh, ShannonSridharan, SanjeevInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2686Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02686.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR02765MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150331s2003 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02765MiAaIMiAaI
Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program in Kyle, Texas, 1993-1995
[electronic resource]
Kevin Knight
,
Matthew Hiller
,
D. Dwayne Simpson
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2003ICPSR2765NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-31.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
drug use, and arrests within the last six months, whether the
counselor was easy to talk to, helped in motivating or building
confidence, or assisted in making a treatment plan, whether the
respondent felt a sense of family or closeness, if his family got
along, enjoyed being together, got drunk together, used drugs
together, or had arguments or fights, if the respondent had a job in
the last six months to a year and if he enjoyed working, whether he
was on time for his job, whether he had new friends or associated with
old friends, and which specific drugs he had used in the last six
months (e.g., hallucinogens, heroin, methadone, or other
opiates). Part 10 (Treatment Background Data, Comparison Group):
Treatment condition of the comparison group. Part 11 (Educational
Demographic Data, Comparison Group): Whether respondents completed a
GED and their highest grade completed. Parts 12 and 13 (Six-Month
Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group, and One-Year Follow-Up
Interview Data, Comparison Group): How important church was to the
respondent, whether the respondent had any educational or vocational
training, if he had friends that had used drugs, got drunk, dealt
drugs, or had been arrested, if within the last six months to a year
the respondent had been arrested for drug use, drug sales, forgery,
fencing, gambling, burglary, robbery, sexual offense, arson, or
vandalism, whether drugs or alcohol affected the respondent's health,
relations, attitude, attention, or ability to work, whether the
respondent experienced symptoms of withdrawal, the number of drug
treatment programs and AA or CA meetings the respondent attended,
whether the respondent received help from parents, siblings, or other
relatives, if treatment was considered helpful, and risky behavior
engaged in (e.g., sharing needles, using dirty needles, and
unprotected sex). Parts 14 and 16 (Probation Officer Data, Six-Month
Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group, and Probation
Officer Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison
Group): Date of departure from prison, supervision level, number of
treatment team meetings, whether there was evidence of job hunting,
problems with transportation, child care, or finding work, number of
drug tests in the last six months, times tested positive for
marijuana, cocaine, heroin, opiates, crack, or other drugs, and number
of arrests, charges, convictions, and technicals. Parts 15 and 17
(Hair Specimen Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and
Comparison Group, and Hair Specimen Data, One-Year Follow-Up
Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Hair collection and its
source at the six-month follow-up (Part 15) and one-year follow-up
(Part 17) and whether parolee was positive or negative for cocaine or
opiates. Part 18 (Texas Department of Public Safety Data, Kyle Cohort
and Comparison Group): Dates of first, second, and third offenses, if
parolee was arrested, and first, second, and third offenses from the
National Crime Information Center. Part 19 (Texas Department of
Criminal Justice Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Treatment
condition, date of release, race, and a Texas Department of Criminal
Justice Salient Factor Risk Score.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02765.v2
addictionicpsralcohol abuseicpsrcorrectional facilitiesicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug useicpsrinmate programsicpsroutcome evaluationicpsrrecidivismicpsrresidential programsicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrsubstance abuse treatmenticpsrtreatment outcomeicpsrtreatment programsicpsrprocess evaluationicpsrNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeKnight, KevinHiller, MatthewSimpson, D. DwayneInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2765Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02765.v2